Barney Frank: Obama Will Drop DADT Court Defense Even If Senate Blocks Repeal

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Thursday that President Obama would stop defending "don't ask, don't tell" in courts, even if a bill forcing its repeal fails to pass in the Senate.

"I believe he has no longer any obligation to defend it in court," Frank told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann about the military's law prohibiting gay servicemembers from openly serving. "If he's against it, the House majorities voted against it, an overwhelming majority of the Senate votes against it, the administrators don't want it, that's lost its legitimacy, and he's made that clear."

Frank explained that he expected the bill -- now planned for a Senate vote on Saturday -- to be passed and sent on for President Obama's signature. In the event of a last-minute change of heart from some of the bipartisan coalition who is expected to favor the measure, however, Frank said that he thought Obama would let go of his belief, in this case, that "presidents are supposed to defend laws."

"He [the President] will drop his defense of it because the argument has been 'well, you're the President and you have this obligation,' and I think that's generally right, we don't want the President picking and choosing what laws they defend in court. But this one will have lost its legitimacy, its moral legitimacy, its majoritarian claim, it won't be a case anybody could argue with the courts, overturning the will of the voter; the voters, majorities in the House and Senate have said, no more to this," Frank said.

On Thursday, Senate Republicans successfully blocked debate on an omnibus spending bill that would have funded the federal government for the next fiscal year, freeing up the Senate schedule for action on the DREAM Act and "don't ask, don't tell" repeal. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has threatened to keep the Senate in session -- all the way up to the beginning of the next Congress in early January, if need be -- until they cover all of the key initiatives on the proposed lame duck agenda.

WATCH:

Comments

[sailhardy]

05:33 PM on 12/27/2010

Barney Frank is an appalling Congressman. He is guilty of nothing, according to him. Yet he takes all sorts of contributions from organisations and people who have business with his committee. He may be acting legally, but the fact is he takes money from people who are affected by the legislation that is filtered through his office. Is he taking bribes? I don't know, but he takes contributions which are repaid via legislation; he takes corporate jet planes to corporate vacation places from "friends," who received a $500,000,000 break. Disgusting.

[devildog09]

10:12 PM on 12/18/2010

This sounds suspiciously like "deeming" a bill to be passed. Now, if Franks states that if they cannot get a repeal bill passed, Obama agreed to stop enforcing or defending DADT, which would remain the law. I guess that oath of office didn't really mean what he said. Instead of "supporting and defending the constitution etc etc", we will only support and defend that which he personally agrees with.

there have been several other cases of governors and state attorney generals doing the same. Their personal feelings are irrelevant, and refusing to enforce a legally enacted law should be grounds for removal.

[marioninreno]

09:00 PM on 12/18/2010

Thank God we don't have to test this theory!! It passed! wooooo whoooo!

[Duppy]

10:09 AM on 12/18/2010

See I knew Obama had a strategy. Good move Obama ! Getting it done by congress is the most orderly way to do it for the military. However, if congress refuses to get it done (specifically the FGOP) then let the court ruling stands. This will be payback to the GOP. Nice move. I like it.

[naschkatze]

12:03 AM on 12/18/2010

I don't like this kind of talk. It seems like a set-up. Just days ago Frank was talking like this was a done deal. Now he's hedging. Lieberman did the same thing.

[capercaper]

09:23 PM on 12/17/2010

I would urge you read and study the DADT repeal bill to grasp what it will and will not accomplish­:

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/05/text-of-dadt-repeal-legislation.html


From the article that accompanie­­s the proposed Bill:

"I''m summarizin­­­g the document above, which is the latest version of the compromise being discussed:

The House and Senate will pass legislatio­­­n this year that provides that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be considered repealed if and when the following happens:

1. The Secretary of Defense receives the "study."
2. The President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that:
- They have considered the recommenda­­­tions in the study
- DOD has prepared the necessary policies and regulation­­­s needed to implement a repeal
- The implementa­­­tion of the repeal is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiven­­­ess, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention.

Current policy will remain in place until the above conditions are satisfied. And if the above conditions are never satisfied, the current DADT policy will remain in place.

There is nothing in the legislatio­­­n that says the repeal must happen."”

[mistykane]

10:58 PM on 12/17/2010

That's in there because during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, the Generals, Casey and Schwartz...all supported the repeal, but stated that they didn't want it implemented until after combat troops leave Afghanistan. Gates gave them that assurance that the implementation would only be done when they decided.

They can vote on the repeal now and implementation will occur later after these conditions are met. That shouldn't be a problem.

[MovieGuy2010]

01:58 AM on 12/18/2010

You spend an inordinate amount of time on these boards against DADT repeal, and other seemingly anti-gay rights stances.

Does it really serve that much of a focal point in your life to obsess about the rights of others?

Who appointed You judge and jury, and where does YOUR God assign you to decide the morality of the world?

[syllepsis]

08:11 PM on 12/17/2010

Russ Feingold said the same thing about warrantless wiretapping...

[bluejean1951]

07:26 PM on 12/17/2010

Could we please vote to protect ALL civil rights under any circumstances and get on with CREATING JOBS please?

[RM Greer]

09:12 PM on 12/17/2010

Faved and fanned #63

[ExRepublican313]

12:07 AM on 12/18/2010

How can anyone argue with this. Pure, simple, and essential. I'll be #64.

[bluejean1951]

10:16 AM on 12/18/2010

Thank you all for your kind thoughts, but all of my life I have always wondered how anyone can look at another human being and NOT see that we're all the same. We're in this together for better or worse, so we might as well make the best of it and choose to do the RIGHT THING! Can't be more simple than that. It's EGO that makes it complicated....

[bluejean1951]

10:17 AM on 12/18/2010

And I'm an ex-Republican myself!

[Scott Zwartz]

06:37 PM on 12/17/2010

Obama does not have the moral courage to drop the appeal unless the GOP give him permission.

While the a few GOP may still block repeal, most GOP do not want this issue dragging them down. For the GOP, it is much better for repeal to come from the Dems before 2011 so they can scream about the immoral Dems in 2011. If it is not repealed, the GOP would love Obie to drop the appeal. DADT strengthens the religiosity crowd who are on an anti-Gay crusade and increases the chance so nut case like Sister Sarah will be the nominee for 2012.

We have learned that if it is a choice between doing what is morally correct and being a coward, Obie is the Coward-in-chief. Obie prefers that Supreme Court rule on DADT.

Thus, we have the ironic behind the scenes battle where Obie does not want to be blamed for ending DADT and the GOP do not not want to be blamed for not ending DADT. Bizarre, que no?

[No Yards]

06:23 PM on 12/17/2010

If Obama is serious then he should probably hope that the Senate does fail to pass the bill so he can immediately announce that he has directed the DoJ to drop their appeal and the DoJ has agreed ... that's about the only way I'd give him any credit for defending gay rights after all the crap he's pulled to avoid even this most simple and logical step in equality.

If the Senate passes the repeal it will have absolutely nothing to do with anything Obama has done .. quite the opposite in fact .. Dick Freaking Cheny would have been a better advocate for gay rights than Obama; at least no worst.

[akarampa]

05:10 PM on 12/17/2010

Frank is right. Obama has already stopped enforcing the policy. It's been over a month since the last discharge. Remember when he said that discharge now have to go through his secretaries of each department? well his army secretary is gay and the rest are too busy to enforce the policy. besides DADT will get repealed tomorrow!

[No Yards]

06:37 PM on 12/17/2010

Enforcement was the least of the problem anyway ... the law did more than simply "fire" you, it prevented you from being yourself in a very basic human way.

It's like saying that if there is a law on the books that made it illegal for Blacks to sit at the front of the bus, and that the bus companies had security people patrol the buses to grab any Blacks sitting too far to the front of the bus and moving them to the back ... but as long as the police didn't enforce the law and arrest Blacks for sitting in the front of the bus, that this is somehow being "pro Black", or addressing equality rights..

Not that you're trying to say it is acceptable, but I think some people may be confusing the "legal enforcement" of the law with the practical effects of the law, even if it isn't "legally" enforced through some "wink wink nudge nudge" agreement.

[Longtimeliberal]

05:02 PM on 12/17/2010

DADT is done! I think Republicans just like to talk. They must be trying to use the issue to rile up the radical right wing so callled Christians.

[maxfax]

04:00 PM on 12/17/2010

So is the Congressman predicting the Senate will block repeal of DADT?

[satorist]

03:20 PM on 12/17/2010

This is the single least helpful thing anyone could say at this moment. If he's got the votes, why use bullying tactics to needlessly antagonizes the opposition without gaining anything while simultaneously giving fence-sitters a reason to remain on the fence? It's just incredibly dumb.

Furthermore, I can't imagine would Obama commit to an action that would encourage many other advocacy groups to demand the same thing on multiple other thorny issues Obama would prefer not to draw a line in the sand. I disagree with Frank's appraisal that this is substantially different. The Senate has not acted; it is merely assumed the votes are there. Would that argument prevail on legislation that didn't get a required 2/3 vote in the House and lost a cloture vote in the Senate? In other words: would he be obligated to not enforce any law that got a majority of both chambers but passed neither?

When you seem to have won the argument, stop talking.

[omobob]

03:09 PM on 12/17/2010

The Supreme Court is exactly where this case should be. Its discriminatory and its unconstitutional.

[broui]

04:46 PM on 12/17/2010

Except if it comes to the Courts overturning it, it MUST be instant which IS disruptive.

If the congress does what it should and must, then the military can roll it out in a far less disruptive manner - which is what they've been asking for.

[omobob]

04:50 PM on 12/17/2010

Nice post. always a pleasure dealing with professionals. have a great weekend. faved.

[No Yards]

06:43 PM on 12/17/2010

Disruptive? All the other countries that went through the same process said it was "boring".

How could it be "disruptive" .. worst case instead of losing some good gays through outings you might lose a few useless bigots who believe they need to stand up for bigotry.

It's more likely to be minus-disruptive (made up a new word?)